RATIRAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants-accused have directed this appeal under section 374 (2) of CrPC being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.1.1994 passed by Additional Session Judge, Dindori in ST No. 143/1991 convicting and sentencing to each of them under section 307 of IPC for RI three years with fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of depositing the fine further six months RI has been directed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on date 24.10.1991 at about 8:00 O'clock in the night in village Pipariya the appellants lashed with sticks entered into the house of complainant Hernial with intention to cause his death. After entering in the house they caused injuries to the complainant by means of sticks, resultantly, he sustained various injuries on the different parts of his body and became unconscious. On receiving information by his brothers Top Singh and Dhannu, they informed to their aunt Sukhko Bai at village Mandli and in the next morning the victim Hernial was taken to hospital at Bajang from where he was referred to Dindori hospital where he remained for some time then was referred to Mandla hospital, where he was admitted for further treatment. The aunt of the victim Sukhkobai lodged the first information report (Ex. P-1) at P.S. Mandla. After recording the interrogatory statements of the witnesses, collecting MLC report and bed head ticket of the victim, on completion of investigation the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence under sections 450/307 of IPC.

(3.) SHRI Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellants without assailing any findings of the trial Court holding responsibility to the appellants for the alleged incident made limited submissions for alteration and modification of the conviction from section 307 to section 325 of IPC, in which some lesser punishment is provided. In respect of such argument he referred MLC report, x-ray reports, bed head tickets and the depositions of the Dr. B.K. Jharia (PW 16), Dr. K. Ueeke (PW 18) and Dr. R.K. Verma (PW 20). He further said that looking to the nature of the injuries mentioned in the MLC report and stated by the doctor and also taking into consideration the x-ray reports, this case does not appear to be a case of section 307 of IPC; as not a single injury stated by the doctor in the pre-MLC report of x-ray report was sufficient to cause death of a person like victim in ordinary course of nature. In continuation, it was stated that the alleged injuries were caused by the appellant by means of sticks, which could not be termed to be a deadly weapon therefore, in any case it was not a case of more than section 325 of IPC. In addition, it was argued that in any case considering the circumstance that incident took place in the year 1991 long before 17 years, the awarded sentence to the appellants by taking lenient view be reduced up to the period for which they have already suffered jail custody during trial i.e. for thirteen days. It was also argued that appellant No. 2 Rangilal was 17 years of the age on the date of the incident and if the Court considering the aforesaid arguments alters or modifies the conviction from section 307 to 325 of IPC, then in that circumstance, appellant No. 2 be extended the benefit of mandatory provision of section 6 of Probation of Offenders Act. He also prayed to extend the benefit of section 4 of the said Act to appellant No. 1. With these submissions he prayed to allow this appeal accordingly.